Posted on 05/16/2009 7:03:22 PM PDT by trying17 (AKA DrGop0821)
Congressman Pete King is conservative-like, but no bonanza. Rick Lazio, the one who ran against Hillary for the Senate. He’s one.
I do not believe in preemptive war. I do not believe that the US should be an empire. We were created as a Republic. I firmly believe we should defend ourselves both abroad and via the 2nd amendment. I do not believe that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and we should not be at war there.
I am as strongly against a Republican President trying to do the nation building thing as I was against Impeached ex-President Clinton doing it in Haiti. I voted for Bush in 2000 because he ran as a true conservative. I was fooled.
YOU: I do not believe in preemptive war. I do not believe that the US should be an empire.
I asked you how many Americans would you required killed before you're willing to defend America? That in no way implies a preemptive war by us. If any one preempted 9/11 it was Osama Bin Laden and Al Quaeda. We reacted to the deaths of almost 3000 Americans on AMERICAN soil. That's NOT preemption.
I firmly believe we should defend ourselves both abroad and via the 2nd amendment.
That's what I'm talking about, Bucko...
I do not believe that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks and we should not be at war there.
I don't share that belief.
I am as strongly against a Republican President trying to do the nation building thing as I was against Impeached ex-President Clinton doing it in Haiti.
Oh, give it a break. We also did it back in 1945-7 when we helped rebuild Germany, Italy, France, England, et. al. from a devastating war. What's worse; nation building, or letting those most devastated by war wallow in their adversity? Is that the Christian thing to do? And since we weren't the ones who started the war but the ones most instrumental in ending it successfully, doesn't that behoove us as a major player to do our Christian part in rebuilding? And does that really define your (and Paul's) warped idea of "Nation Building" when we're helping those countries (including Iraq, Afghanistan, or whoever...) rebuild their countries based on their rules of law and government; not ours?
You people are clueless when it comes to World affairs. You listen to this little, pompous jerk who has sufficient support to be one of 435 members of the House, but is a 9/11 Truther and nutbag, and you believe he's the best thing since sliced bread. The guy's a jerk, and so are most of his followers. When most people who show up at his rallies are 9/11 Truthers, skinheads, right-wing dirt bags, that should tell you something. But no, you just carry on. Well, Bucko, I guess that defines you.
Now go back to your sandbox and get out your toys like a good little lad... Let those who understand the World and what America and the West are up against do the job you are so clueless about.
It certainly was one of the reasons. How enthusiastic were you to vote McCain even with Governor Palin as a running mate? Obama with all the hype and all the MSM attention was still beatable. He did not win by a land slide even with all the ACORN cheating going on.
WE MUST STOP THROWING OUR OWN UNDER THE BUS. The Democrats do not do that. McCain was certainly not one of us, but Dr. Paul is. In my opinion.
I know. :-(
I'm not sure why we can't elect someone who would make the whole world wealthy, but we cannot.
You are in deep denial.
Enlighten me, a newbie, with the Hannity fiasco please if anyone can. I already googled how he removed this place from his links and ranted about this site on his show. Please do enlighten me.
“I'm not sure why we can't elect someone who would make the whole world wealthy, but we cannot.”It is not the job of elected American officials to make the world wealthy!
Before castigating "nation building" as a device, one would be advised to understand why it was being done in each case.
After WW II, we rebuilt Europe and Japan -- because there was good reason to do so. We needed allies in the Cold War. And we needed trading partners who could afford to buy our goods. Worked out for everybody, wouldn't we all agree (maybe even Ron Paul).
Clinton undertook "nation building" in Haiti (and Somalia) because the Left believes we should lift poor nations into prosperity with foreign aid and guidance from Harvard. There is no record of this approach ever having worked, anywhere. We can all agree on that, too, can't we?
Bush opted for "nation building" in Iraq because effectively fighting radical Islam required a competing idea. The idea was "freedom". Iraq as a successful democratic state would serve as a positive example to all of Islam -- and a reliable ally in the very middle of the Middle East.
The Islamofascists clearly recognized the risk a successful Iraq meant to them and put everything they had into the resistance. We won't know for several years whether the gambit was successful (if the Democrats don't piss it away first) -- but initial indications are positive. Bush gets credit for his vision, even if everybody doesn't agree with the strategy.
I simply don't see it that way.
How enthusiastic were you to vote McCain even with Governor Palin as a running mate?
As most people, I became enthused when Palin entered the race.
Obama with all the hype and all the MSM attention was still beatable. He did not win by a land slide even with all the ACORN cheating going on.
You're right, McLame could have won, but he did not fight. He had his chances, and would not capitalize on them.
WE MUST STOP THROWING OUR OWN UNDER THE BUS. The Democrats do not do that. McCain was certainly not one of us, but Dr. Paul is. In my opinion.
I'm not throwing him under the bus. I just don't agree with him. He's not a candidate who represents my thinking.
“The only reason I would want to go to California now is to see Reagan’s Library in Simi Valley.”
Last time I was in CA I visited the Reagan Library. My family loved it. Kind of a pilgramage. I have to go again now that there is a memorial to Reagan there.
I tell people at work I went to the Reagan library instead of Disneyland. Actually we went to both but never agagin. From now on only the library and Sea World in SD.
Well, he probably is! :^D
Mark Levin sometimes refers to his Trollish
callers as probably calling from their basements
in their underwear.
And then he does the “Walkin’ ‘round in Women’s
Underwear” song. He torments Sean Hannity
with that sometimes! LOL!
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Mark+Levin+Women%27s+Underwear&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
Agreed. It's also not the job of elected American officials to make the world poor, as we have now.
My point was that capitalism works every time it's tried and raises everyone's standard of living. I'm not sure what your point is.
You're leaving something out - the Philippines - the first and only US colony. I've lived in western Tokyo and Manila. One would be hard-pressed to guess which was an ally of the US and which was the enemy of the US in WWII. Manila still bears scars to this day. Western Tokyo is a bit different.
Clinton undertook "nation building" in Haiti (and Somalia) because the Left believes we should lift poor nations into prosperity with foreign aid and guidance from Harvard. There is no record of this approach ever having worked, anywhere. We can all agree on that, too, can't we?
Agreed.
Bush opted for "nation building" in Iraq because effectively fighting radical Islam required a competing idea. The idea was "freedom". Iraq as a successful democratic state would serve as a positive example to all of Islam -- and a reliable ally in the very middle of the Middle East.
Iraq was already a successful secular Islamic state and I do not agree with your premise in the slightest. President Bush campaigned on a platform of getting us out of foreign wars, not starting new ones. That's part of why I voted for him in 2000.
The Islamofascists clearly recognized the risk a successful Iraq meant to them and put everything they had into the resistance. We won't know for several years whether the gambit was successful (if the Democrats don't piss it away first) -- but initial indications are positive. Bush gets credit for his vision, even if everybody doesn't agree with the strategy.
This is a non sequitor. You may win with this sort of argument on a Democrat or a moderate, but not with me. I'm proud to be a founding-fathers Paleo-con. Let's stay out of entangling foreign affairs. Just Say No.
“It's also not the job of elected American officials to make the world poor, as we have now.”I find your use of the word ‘we’ to be rather, uh, out of place.
“My point was that capitalism works every time it's tried and raises everyone's standard of living.”Well, no, not everyone's.
“I'm not sure what your point is.”You (appeared to) bemoan the fact that ‘we can't elect someone who would make the whole world wealthy’ and I was merely pointing out that the constitutional job description of elected officials, does not include making the whole world wealthy.
...
You're right, McLame could have won, but he did not fight. He had his chances, and would not capitalize on them.
...
I just don't agree with him. He's not a candidate who represents my thinking.
Dr. Paul would have made a better candidate than McCain. Governor Palin was a brilliant choice for VP, but could not (was not allowed to) make up for a nitwit moderate at the helm.
It's the neo-con/moderate wing of the GOP that needs to go. You had your chance and you blew it. You could have put into place an electable VP post President Bush and you blew it. President Bush, as successful as he was, was not a conservative and did not have best interests of the Republican Party in mind while he was in power. Now we have a President hell-bent on destroying us. As a party, as a nation. Bah.
“Thou shalt not kill”
Correction, it’s “Thou Shall Not Murder”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.